For the past two years, protests against land expropriation have occurred across Taiwan. The wave of discontent and questions has taken aim at what is seen as the inferiority and unsuitability of the Land Expropriation Act (土地徵收條例), which led to a recent amendment by the legislature. However, the amended law will not put an end to the controversy, it will add to it.
The public have long made forceful demands for the protection of designated agricultural zones, but because of major infrastructure projects approved by the Cabinet, among other reasons, these areas can still be developed at will.
Many ongoing disputes, such as the ones over farmland in Dapu Village (大埔) in Miaoli County’s Jhunan Township (竹南), the Siangsihliao (相思寮) area of Changhua County’s Erlin Township (二林) and over the Puyu development project in Hsinchu County’s Jhubei Township (竹北), are major infrastructure construction projects approved by the Cabinet, giving us a hint of how this label is being misused.
The result is that the regulations about the protection of designated farmland in the new legislation are but skin deep — an empty formality.
At the level of practical public participation, the new legislation refuses to incorporate a system for public hearings. This is something that people have been calling for and that would give the public and the government an opportunity to engage in real debate.
The new legislation only allows for public hearings in cases where a designated agricultural zone will be expropriated for use in a major infrastructure project approved by the Cabinet and when that expropriation is “controversial.”
However, being controversial is an abstract and ambiguous concept, and without clear standards, it will unfortunately be at the discretion of the Cabinet to decide when a public hearing is required.
In terms of compensation, the new legislation refuses to let real-estate evaluators make objective expert appraisals and instead lets local governments, which frequently are also the expropriating party, determine the market value. With the local government being both player and referee, any talk about “market value” becomes mere wordplay.
To add insult to injury, even in the case of this kind of “market value,” the new legislation says that the implementation date should be decided by the Cabinet. In other words, so long as the Cabinet has not set an implementation date, even expropriation at the market value set by the expropriating authority itself will be unachievable.
In addition, “early tender” development, through which a bid process is held before the expropriation has been approved and that lacks legal basis, remains unregulated in the new legislation.
In a democracy with its diversity of values, the pursuit of substantial democracy is always a difficult matter. This is precisely the reason why procedural justice is fundamental and crucial.
The fundamental aim of a land expropriation system is to regulate and provide a legitimate procedure for expropriations, and to guarantee the equal treatment of the public in the process is its main task.
However, a look at the amendment to the expropriation act reveals no effort toward procedural justice. Not only that, the amendment tramples all over procedural justice and humiliates the idea. This process is not the result of the rule of law that one expects in a democratic state; in fact, it is the backsliding of democracy.
One of the main ingredients in a healthy democracy is accountability, but that has been left far behind by the current implementation of the legislative and executive powers.
Many legislators do not even understand the meaning of legal bills and they only follow the executive’s lead, in effect becoming a rubber stamp for the executive.
The executive uses this to take over legislative powers that should belong to the legislature to push behind the scenes for several preposterous legal bills that violate procedural justice without being held accountable for doing so.
The same is true for the aforementioned amendment that, while formally passed by the legislature, was in fact orchestrated by the Cabinet.
In addition to this amendment, we have also seen how the shadow dancers in the Cabinet have shouted slogans about residential justice and land justice in relation to urban renewal policies, the Eastern Development Act (東部發展條例) and the early tender policy, while they have in fact sacrificed the public’s rights to a place to live and a stable job.
The question of how to bring about a politics of accountability is currently the greatest challenge to Taiwan’s democracy.
Hsia Hsiao-chuan is a professor and director of the Graduate Institute for Social Transformation Studies at Shih Hsin University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Prior to marrying a Taiwanese and moving to Taiwan, a Chinese woman, surnamed Zhang (張), used her elder sister’s identity to deceive Chinese officials and obtain a resident identity card in China. After marrying a Taiwanese, surnamed Chen (陳) and applying to move to Taiwan, Zhang continued to impersonate her sister to obtain a Republic of China ID card. She used the false identity in Taiwan for 18 years. However, a judge ruled that her case does not constitute forgery and acquitted her. Does this mean that — as long as a sibling agrees — people can impersonate others to alter, forge
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
A retired elementary-school teacher surnamed Lai (賴) said that, after retiring at the age of 50, he earned a monthly pension of over NT$60,000. Since retirement, he has earned over NT$10 million (US$306,457). If the government does not allocate more funding, the pension funds would soon go bankrupt. There is an urgent need for reform. If his monthly pension were lowered to NT$50,000, it would still be enough to cover basic life expenses, he said. In response, Taipei School Education Union president Lee Hui-lan (李惠蘭) said to Lai: “What do you mean by using your own pension as an example?”
RSS